Haryana gets 4 wks to reply in PIL against retd DGP heading complaints authority
In an interim order, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Neerja Kulwant Kalson noted that despite notice having been issued on August 29, 2025, the State had not filed its reply so far.
Punjab and Haryana High Court gives Haryana four weeks to reply on plea challenging appointment of retired DGP as Police Complaints Authority chief The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday gave the Haryana government four weeks to file its reply in a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of a retired Director General of Police as chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority, cautioning that any further delay would cost the State its right to respond.
In an interim order, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Neerja Kulwant Kalson noted that despite notice having been issued on August 29, 2025, the State had not filed its reply so far. The Bench directed that if the reply was not filed within four weeks, the State’s right to do so would stand forfeited. The matter has been listed for February 26, 2026.
The PIL, argued by senior advocate Rajesh Garg, raises questions over the legality of appointing a retired senior police officer to head the Police Complaints Authority, a body mandated by the Supreme Court in its 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case.
Garg told the court that the Supreme Court had clearly directed that Police Complaints Authorities across the country should be headed by retired High Court judges. He said that while Haryana enacted a law in 2007 allowing the post to be held by either a retired High Court judge or a retired civil servant, the provision was diluted a year later to permit appointment of any “person of eminence” with experience in administration or law. It was under this diluted provision that a retired Haryana DGP was appointed as chairperson, he argued.
Referring to a 2015 Division Bench judgment of the High Court in a similar case concerning Chandigarh, Garg pointed out that the court had quashed the appointment of a retired Indian Economic Service officer as chairperson of the authority, holding it to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. That judgment, he said, was never challenged before the Supreme Court and had therefore attained finality. Following the ruling, Chandigarh appointed a retired High Court judge to head the authority.
Responding to the State’s contention that the Prakash Singh matter was still pending before the Supreme Court, Garg clarified that the pending issue related only to the fixed tenure of Directors General of Police and not to the composition of Police Complaints Authorities. He also cited a subsequent Supreme Court order stating that any state law running contrary to its 2006 directions would be kept in abeyance.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over the State’s continued failure to file a reply. Chief Justice Nagu observed that while one of the respondents had filed a response, the State had not done so despite ample opportunity.
When the petitioner sought interim relief, the court indicated that granting such relief would amount to final relief at this stage. However, the Bench made it clear that the issue would be taken up after pleadings were complete, stressing that the State could not be allowed to delay the proceedings any further.
“This is why a peremptory order is being passed,” the Chief Justice observed, while fixing the matter for hearing in the last week of February.
Share
